Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth O'Day
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Elizabeth O'Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't have an account, and I am not well versed with Wiki editing. I might be wrong, but it appears that I cannot create the deletion debate page.
The page appears to be a copypasta of her resume, which is not very impressive. A search on Google Scholar shows that since her last paper, nearly 5 years ago, she has published one opinion paper - not very impressive for a scientist. It also shows no patents. The last mention about her on Google News dates from 2016 - not very impressive for a public personality. In particular, there is no mention any venture funds being accrued by her company - which suggests she lacks any backers, and any products. In fact, according to manta.com, her company has 1 employee, and 23 thousand dollars revenue. No article in Wikipedia links to her page, because, again, she is not notable.
I'd venture to say that her inclusion into a list of women-scientists devalues the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.21.197 (talk • contribs) 17:05, August 2, 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text was copied from article talk page. I have not yet formed an opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall talk 18:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 18:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 19:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 19:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 19:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. She founded a fashion company and a biotech company, and made a splash at her college. She's notable by our definition, Wikipedia:Notability, from indepth coverage by the Patriot Ledger,[1] and the Boston Globe (twice),[2][3]. Everything above that, such as the papers and awards, and yet another indepth bio from the Boston College alumni paper,[4] is chrome, but doesn't hurt. Note that I approved this Draft to mainspace for Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. --GRuban (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- First, as I said above, the biotech company she founded is less than a unicorn. There are no venture funds, and probably no employees. Second, re. Lizzard Fashion, that was a T-shirt printing operations, not "fashion" by any common sense definition of the word "fashion". Also, Lizzard Fashion went down so thoroughly, even the .com domain was not renewed, and is currently parked. Third, I am not sure what do you mean by "making a splash". She is definitely one of the less successful membres of her Harvard class. Fourth, you employ those old articles (2006 and 2011), as if they somehow support your claims. However, they do not address her business skills, and merely show another facet of her trying-and-failing approach. I have no metrics to judge her achievement in science popularization or her effort to get girls into science education, except for the fact that she gave up on them. 73.61.21.108 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- This entirely misses the point. Notability is not about being worthy, it is not about success, it is not about business skills or other talents. The decision is not one that involves evaluating the individual's accomplishments. (Eddie the Eagle was a sub-Olympic-quality Olympic ski-jumper who never won anything, but he is unquestionably notable because the international media chose to cover the fact that he was sub-standard, and the controversy his participation engendered.) It is not a competition, where only the most notable members of a Harvard class qualify. Simply put: Has the individual received substantial non-routine coverage in sources with a reputation for reliability? If you want to argue that the coverage she received is routine local news, that is one thing, but it is an invalid argument to suggest that the person is non-notable because they are not successful, because their company failed, because their other company only has a dozen employees, or any other evaluation of their business acumen or perceived societal value. Agricolae (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Yes, thanks, Agricolae. People don't have to be either successful or skillful to have Wikipedia articles written about them, they just have to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So getting continued media coverage, for whatever reason, generally suffices, even if that is for trying-and-failing. We have perfectly fine articles for Pets.com and Elizabeth Holmes and Arming America and, yes, Eddie the Eagle, and hundreds and hundreds of other articles about people or businesses that are generally not considered "successful". --GRuban (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for reminding me. Per Wikipedia:Notability, "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." The articles you listed are not secondary sources. Elizabeth Holmes is listed in 'secondary sources', as she is the posted child for biotech unicorns, investor fraud, and the incipient government-biotech complex. O'Day is not that either. 73.61.21.80 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- This entirely misses the point. Notability is not about being worthy, it is not about success, it is not about business skills or other talents. The decision is not one that involves evaluating the individual's accomplishments. (Eddie the Eagle was a sub-Olympic-quality Olympic ski-jumper who never won anything, but he is unquestionably notable because the international media chose to cover the fact that he was sub-standard, and the controversy his participation engendered.) It is not a competition, where only the most notable members of a Harvard class qualify. Simply put: Has the individual received substantial non-routine coverage in sources with a reputation for reliability? If you want to argue that the coverage she received is routine local news, that is one thing, but it is an invalid argument to suggest that the person is non-notable because they are not successful, because their company failed, because their other company only has a dozen employees, or any other evaluation of their business acumen or perceived societal value. Agricolae (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- First, as I said above, the biotech company she founded is less than a unicorn. There are no venture funds, and probably no employees. Second, re. Lizzard Fashion, that was a T-shirt printing operations, not "fashion" by any common sense definition of the word "fashion". Also, Lizzard Fashion went down so thoroughly, even the .com domain was not renewed, and is currently parked. Third, I am not sure what do you mean by "making a splash". She is definitely one of the less successful membres of her Harvard class. Fourth, you employ those old articles (2006 and 2011), as if they somehow support your claims. However, they do not address her business skills, and merely show another facet of her trying-and-failing approach. I have no metrics to judge her achievement in science popularization or her effort to get girls into science education, except for the fact that she gave up on them. 73.61.21.108 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - without addressing her notability, devaluation has absolutely nothing to do with it. We can't make our decision based on the implications of having a page. She is either notable or not notable, and if she is notable, let the chips fall where they may. We can't decide someone is not notable just because we don't like the fact that they may be, or that they are notable for what we think are the 'wrong' reasons. Agricolae (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)